Was evil meant for Arda?

[Celebthôl]

To start of, i know this is completely contradictory to the last thread i just made, but im not pinning myself down on just one idea.

Anyway, my question:

Did Ilúvatar purposly put a certain factor into Melkor to make him as evil as he was, i mean look at it in this way:

Arda was created and the Children of Ilúvatar would live happy lives in peace etc for many long ages, but surely it would get boring after a while, there would be no action and fishing would be the most entertaining thing to do (;)), however if there was evil in Arda, then there would be action, it wouldnt all be peace and perfect, and people like Túrin, Beren and Fingolfin would not exist as the amazing warriors and heros as they were, they would be farmers, or herdsmen there is a big contrast there.

So was Melkor purpously (sp) made evil?...Just something to think about...

Thôl

[Lantarion]

Interesting question, Celeb.
I've always thought of it in terms of balance: if the world had only Godness in it, it would be only 'half-full', and its inhabitants could never achieve full 'enlightenment' status. The Dao-de-Jing, the sentral work of Taoism, says as much; everything has its opposite. It's the well-known yam/yeung (yin/yang) situation.

Perhaps others have more profound views. ;)

[Celebthôl]

But if we look at it like that, how come there was no evil or opposite to the goodness in the shire? Could it have been contained without?

Then we look at it in another way, if Melkor was good, and the joint high king alongside Manwe, where would the evil have come from?

The Valar (the ones who arent Melkor ;)), they were purely good, there was no evil in them at all, that is why they could not contemplate Melkor and his lies, as none thought like him.

[Eriol]

There is a big thread in the archives about this: "Melkor -- Evil by Will or Evil by Nature", I think that's the name. You will see my point of view there towards the end... but in a nutshell, no, Melkor was not "designed" by Eru to be Evil. He could have been good, and the world would not be a boring place if he did.

That, of course, is just my opinion :).

[Celebthôl]

No that cant be right, as all that happened was the thought of Ilúvatar, therefore he MUST have wanted Melkor to be evil, of course there is always the choise, but in the end for all we know (only Mr Tolkien does) Ilúvatar may have made Melkor's choises (indeed everybodies chioses) for him...

This isnt to do with Melkor officailly, just evil within Arda, so can a Mod NOT merge this thread, thanx

Thôl

[Eriol]

No. Foreknowledge is not preordainment. Eru knew that Melkor would turn evil, but he did not design (or wish) Melkor to be evil. He could have prevented it only by destroying Melkor, but he loved Melkor too much to do that. (If he changed Melkor's nature he would be destroying him). Instead, he governed History so that Melkor's acts would turn out to the embellishment of Arda.

Not all that happened was the thought of Ilúvatar, that's why we have free will. All that happened was foreseen by Ilúvatar, but that is not the same thing.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Eriol
No. Foreknowledge is not preordainment. Eru knew that Melkor would turn evil, but he did not design (or wish) Melkor to be evil. He could have prevented it only by destroying Melkor, but he loved Melkor too much to do that. (If he changed Melkor's nature he would be destroying him). Instead, he governed History so that Melkor's acts would turn out to the embellishment of Arda.

Not all that happened was the thought of Ilúvatar, that's why we have free will. All that happened was foreseen by Ilúvatar, but that is not the same thing.

Yeah that makes more sence, but he still had the opportunity at the very begging to stop evil, but he didnt...

[Eriol]

He could only do it by destroying Melkor. That is the leap of faith that we must make, both in Arda and in the real world -- Eru judged that a creation with free will is better than a creation without it -- even if free will chooses evil, freely.

[Celebthôl]

Yes (hey Eriol this is starting to sound like that other thread about free will :p), that is true, he cant change their will in the slightest way, it defeats the pupouse of FREE will...

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Eriol
No. Foreknowledge is not preordainment. Eru knew that Melkor would turn evil, but he did not design (or wish) Melkor to be evil. He could have prevented it only by destroying Melkor, but he loved Melkor too much to do that. (If he changed Melkor's nature he would be destroying him). Instead, he governed History so that Melkor's acts would turn out to the embellishment of Arda.

Since the Ainur are the offspring of Eru's thought - he created them - he must have made Melkor purposely evil or prone to 'fall'. He might have given him a choice of choosing good instead of evil, but Melkor's evil and chaotic urges were just too strong to resist. And since Melkor had evil in him, surely there must have been a small part of Eru's mind that was evil as well? Just wondering.

Originally posted by Celebthôl
But if we look at it like that, how come there was no evil or opposite to the goodness in the shire? Could it have been contained without?

There were places of utter evil as well - the most apparent being Mordor. And neither places of complete evil nor those of complete goodness remained so forever. Mordor was rid of evil after the fall of Sauron, and only an 'evil atmosphere' remained that had to be cleansed through the course of time. The Shire was invaded by Saruman's lackeys and evil entered it.

And noone that was born in Middle Earth was free of evil because Melkor had poured forth his 'element' into the very matter of Arda...

[Celebthôl]

Surely the Elves were free of it, as they were never evil, they were subject to it, but they never worked for an evil cause, and all but the Noldor after the unchaining of Melkor did only good things...right?

[Eriol]

The Elves were also marred by Morgoth, since he corrupted the very stuff of Arda, and the Elves were made of this stuff. (I think this is in Myths Transformed, HOME X, isn't it ithrynluin?).

Eru made all beings with free will "prone to fall". Melkor fell. I don't think this indicates that Eru designed him for that end. Your argument assumes that Manwë, for instance, could not fall. So the Valar are nothing more than puppets in Eru's hands. I don't see it that way. If it is correct, then the Valar are not free agents and we should not even bother with naming them, it all comes from Eru. But note, the same reasoning can then be applied to men and elves, and the whole story is a big prank of Eru.

It is one way of looking at it, I suppose. But I prefer mine :).

Also, "evil and chaotic urges" makes Melkor seem like a psychopath. Evil is not a psychological disease. Melkor would not turn good with the proper medication. Pride and lust for power are not a public health problem ;).

I can just imagine Melkor saying "The voices made me do it... I didn't want to harm anyone..."

:D

Seriously, "evil and chaotic urges" presupposes an intrinsic flaw in a spiritual being like Melkor. He had no body, remember, to be flawed. This flaw would be present only in Melkor and not in his brethren.

As I said, it is one way of looking at it... but I prefer mine.

[Ithrynluin]

Eru made all beings with free will "prone to fall". Melkor fell. I don't think this indicates that Eru designed him for that end. Your argument assumes that Manwë, for instance, could not fall.

From HoME X: Morgoth's Ring; Myths Transformed:

Of Manwe it was said, when Melkor was allowed to go freely about Valinor, that he believed that his evil was cured: 'for he himself was free from the evil and could not comprehend it'.


So he [Melkor] offers to become 'the least of the Valar' and servant of them each and all, to help (in advice and skill) in repairing all the evils and hurts he has done. It is this offer which seduces or deludes Manwe - Manwe must be shown to have his own inherent fault (though not sin)...


The statement that Manwë did not know evil is very curious then. If you do not know evil, if you don't 'feel' or understand it, wouldn't that make you less prone to fall to its influence. If you are totally free of it, what is there to resist then? Manwë doesn't have even a notion of evil in himself, we never see him pass a trial and resist it - from his very conception he was free of it. Hmm...

So the Valar are nothing more than puppets in Eru's hands. I don't see it that way.

Neither do I. They were made to be as they are, but otherwise have free will - their characters and actions will be influenced by the way Eru made them and their characters - the impulses he implanted into their 'subconsciousness', so to speak.

Also, "evil and chaotic urges" makes Melkor seem like a psychopath. Evil is not a psychological disease. Melkor would not turn good with the proper medication.

No, evil is not a disease, and Melkor's 'urges' certainly could not be cured. He was who he was, the way he was made. I am not discarding the possibility that he could have turned to evil but I think the part of him that could do good and turn from the path of destruction was very minute compared to the chaotic, rebellious side of his personality. This description of Melkor certainly IS reminiscent of him being a psychopath, or at least utterly nihilistic (and being unable to help himself in the end, and resist his urges):

Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was not from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of
others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have 'existed', independent of his own mind, and a world in potential.

Pride and lust for power are not a public health problem .

I simply think that there was more to it than that.

[Eriol]

Free will means exactly the ability to overcome inherent, "subconscious" constraints. Otherwise it is not free. So Melkor could have been good, and Manwë could have been bad -- or else they were never free. "He was who he was, the way he was made" -- if so, he was never free. In humans the free will is constrained by physical nature, but what could constrain an Ainur? How could he have "childhood traumas", or a defect in his psyche? These are the only ways a spirit could be "not-free" and evil. And these would lead to a defect (not a choice, a defect) in its maker, Eru. As I said, it is a way to look at it, but my way of looking at it leaves Eru to be all-powerful, omniscient and absolutely perfect, while leaving room for Melkor's evil. We have to choose between these views, I guess.

That quote about Melkor's nihilism is from the end of the story, not from the beginning. I am talking about the Melkor before the creation. Was he a nihilist then? I doubt it. He was also enamoured of Arda, as the other Ainur.

[Ithrynluin]

Free will means exactly the ability to overcome inherent, "subconscious" constraints. Otherwise it is not free. So Melkor could have been good, and Manwë could have been bad -- or else they were never free.

If you have complete free will surely you feel the urge to do evil at times, and you either overcome it or succumb to it.
Manwë did not know evil. That speaks for itself. He goes through no trials and tribulations to fight it. He was made perfect in the sense that he had no evil in him, and imperfect in the sense that he was a bit 'gullible' (if that's what we could call it) when it came to trusting a supposedly reformed evil-doer.
Melkor was made to stray, but even so, he was given a chance and he wasn't completely evil. He could have overcome his corruptibility if he fought against it, but he failed.

"He was who he was, the way he was made" -- if so, he was never free.

We are free, even though the genes we inherit from our parents mold our character and some hidden impulses that may or may not surface sometime in life. Even if there's something in our personality that we don't like or that hinders us from achieving our goals, we have the choice to either fight this or yield to it. And the struggle to overcome this is sometimes extremely difficult, and giving up is quite easy.

Agree to disagree!

[Celebthôl]

Is there a bigger question in this, is the evil from Ilúvatar, so therefore is Ilúvatar in some way evil?

[Eriol]

That would follow from ithrynluin's views, or so it seems to me. That is why I am reluctant to agree with him and therefore I cling to my own wild notions ;) :).

[Celebthôl]

well there is evil in all of us, even if it isnt used, we all have the capability of being evil, even dare i say it Ilúvatar...

[Lantarion]

I think Ilúvatar was above all concepts of "Good" and "Evil". I see him as Brahman in Hinduism: untouchable, formless and free of constraints, above description and characterstic (although Ramanuja said that Brahman posessed "innumerable wonderful qualities"; but in order to be perfect the perfect entity has to have every single quality imaginable, and immaginable. Perfection isn't the same as all-goodness).

[Celebthôl]

Exactly, and when he dreampt up the Ainur he passed a part of everything into Melkor alone, therefore he definatly got evilness from Ilúvatar, and i guess others did aswell, such as Balrogs and Sauron...

[Eriol]

Well, to each his own :). But Tolkien surely did not view Eru as an analogue of Brahman, but of Jehovah. Eru has a personality, has a will, and judges. Brahman does nothing of the sort.

In a monotheistic setting, perfect does indeed mean "all-good" (as well as "all-beautiful" and "all-true").

Though certainly no one will arrest you for seeing Eru as Brahman ;).

[Lantarion]

Haha; sorry, I didn't mean to say that Ilúvatar was exactly like Brahman. I meant that I think he is above adjectival desciption. He is the Maker of Everything. To call him one thing would mean that he was not another. Therefore you must call him Everything, or Nothing.
But as Eru is indeed a 'godlike' mythological figure, i.e. he has a vaguel described 'personality', and has certain qualities (e.g. the Flame Imperishable). I mean, he is tangible in a sense, whereas Brahman could never be called tangible.

[Celebthôl]

So therefore he was everything, including evil, he just didnt use these traits he didnt need to, but he made the Ainur out of everything he was, but spreadout between them all, except with Melkor he had a part of everything including evil, and seeing as no other Valar (apparently) gained evilness, we must asume that Melkor gained a fair ammount of evilness. Maybe Eru planned on Melkor being able to control the evil...i dunno :confused: :rolleyes:

[Eriol]

I don't have time to answer this now, Thôl, but I will give you a part of the answer as I see it: Evil does not really exist. That is why perfection does not include it. Evil is simply a debasement of good. And therefore perfection has no trace of evil, since it is incorruptible.

[Ithrynluin]

I happened upon another interesting quote in HoME X: Morgoth's Ring:

For Eru is Lord of All, and moveth all the devices of his creatures, even the malice of the Marrer, in his final purposes

I think this reinforces my view that Melkor was made evil (not wholly evil, but most of his personality) and was acting out Eru's greater plan.

I'm sure that Eriol has an alternative explanation for this passage. ;)

[Eriol]

Why, sure :D

Who has the malice? The Marrer. Who have the devices? The creatures. It is plain in the quote. The malice is not from Eru, and neither are the devices. Eru moves them for his own final purposes, but they are not from him.

I would think this interpretation is more likely than yours, by the phrasing of the sentence ;).

I have a favorite quote of Milton's Paradise Lost that shows well the relationship between Satan and God. (I had once qouted it in one of Luhnithiliel's threads, about Light). I know the parallel between these and Eru / Melkor is disputed by some, but I think Tolkien pretty much patterned them after God / Satan.


Fall’n Cherube, to be weak is miserable
Doing or Suffering:but of this be sure,
To do ought good never will be our task,
But ever to do ill our sole delight,
As being the contrary to his high will
Whom we resist. If then his Providence
Out of our evil seek to bring forth good,
Our labour must be to pervert that end,
And out of good still to find means of evil.

This is not only explanatory of Melkor's motives but also of the way Providence, Eru's plan, works -- never by taking the free will out of the agent, only by thwarting his labors.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Eriol
Who has the malice? The Marrer. Who have the devices? The creatures. It is plain in the quote. The malice is not from Eru, and neither are the devices. Eru moves them for his own final purposes, but they are not from him.

Everything is from Eru, anything that is on Arda, or that happens on Arda etc is his thought, the devices included, he did not bring them to Arda directly, he only left the plans for them in the Marrers head and the Marrer brings them forth, nothing can exist that was not first thought of by Eru...

Edit: Gah you edited that post just before i poste :mad: :p and i dont understand that quote :rolleyes: i have such a feeble mind :(

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Everything is from Eru, anything that is on Arda, or that happens on Arda etc is his thought, the devices included, he did not bring them to Arda directly, he only left the plans for them in the Marrers head and the Marrer brings them forth, nothing can exist that was not first thought of by Eru...

But then we have no free will, and are just like Aulë's Dwarves...

I could challenge that, but it would take looooong posts.

(I already did some of it in the Gary Kasparov thread, which had some record-breaking posts).

EDIT: Sorry! I thought the quote was worth it. It regards Satan speaking to himself about his methods, so to speak.

[Celebthôl]

Im not saying that they didnt have free will b/c that would be folly and they did, but things happened for a reason, i.e. Bilbo going on the journey etc, he didnt want to it was against his will, but look what happened there, i think Ilúvatar may have had some sort of dealings there, and the major things that happened, i believe Eru had a hand in aswell, i.e. the 5th battle of Beleriand where Morgoth was finally taken away and hurled into the void, and he most certainly had a hand in who gained the ring. Who better than Gollum to posses it? If he didnt gain it and go into hiding in the MM then it would have been found, and so on.

Edit: There are to many edits :D and it most likely was im just to dumb to understand it :(

[Eriol]

Sure Eru deals with the world -- constantly. But he does so through Providence, the governing of the World, and not through forcing people to make choices. And that is why we have free will, we can choose good or evil. The point of Providence is that even if we choose evil Eru can turn it into good through the governance of the World.

So there are some things in the world which do not come from Eru -- the choices of free agents. He uses this material to guide History, but he does not provide the material itself.

And this is why ithrynluin's quote can be interpreted in a "Catholic" way, as most probably Tolkien would have intended it.

[Celebthôl]

But it was not Bilbos choise to find the Ring, but he did, it was not his choise to go on the "adventure" but he did, (when i say that, i mean he didnt want to go on it).
Eru had a hand in both of these events, i.e. as Gandalf so perfectly put it

"Bilbo was meant to find the ring"

and only Eru can do that, not Manwe, not Gandalf.

Eru takes control in the most subtle of ways but it makes the biggest impact on Arda...

[Eriol]

Exactly. Bilbo' first choice after finding the Ring was a crucial one -- whether to kill Gollum or not. Perhaps Eru, the Master Puppeteer, was simply giving Bilbo the impression of having a choice.

:D

I don't think so. I like to think that even if Bilbo killed Gollum, the world would get out of it all right. Perhaps it would take longer. Perhaps Sauron would have won the War of the Ring. It would certainly have been bad for Bilbo, himself.

But if you believe in an All-loving, All-mighty, All-perfect Eru you have to believe also that any setbacks will be solved, any obstacles will be surmounted.

The presumption that "in the end all will turn out right" is simply an illusion otherwise. (This applies to our world as well).

[Celebthôl]

It does apply to our world, all will turn out right, but let us say...somewhere along the line we killed Gollum, therefore the badness took over and it will all turn to right but will take a lot longer than it should ;)

[Eriol]

Agreed...

And then we have the answer to the question of the thread, have we not?

[Celebthôl]

I guess we do :)

Well thank you for the great discussion :)

[Helcaraxë]

We could debate this for hours. Put simply, I agree with Thol. To be "Lord of All", he would also have to be lord of evil. That evil is a debasement of good is irrelevant. You say it doesn't exist, Eriol, but even as a debasement of good it must truly exist or we would have no knoledge nor understanding of it. And no, I don't think we have a proper answer to the question, only speculation, but I suppose that as mortals that that is the most we can understand regarding Eru's higher purposes.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Morgoth"sBane
You say it doesn't exist, Eriol, but even as a debasement of good it must truly exist or we would have no knoledge nor understanding of it.

Truly exist -- many things are understood without "truly existing". Blindness may be understood, even though light is perceived, and even if someone has never experienced blindness itself.

Is there any ontological existence in blindness?

Can you say blindness "truly exists"? Well, sure you can, since there are blind people. But do you experience or know blindness at all, unless with your imagination? To you, blindness is more like a dream (a bad dream) than reality.

True existence is something that only God may grant. Pink flying elephants may be understood, but they don't exist :) . Likewise, Eä was understood before it was "willed" into existence. By your argument, this is impossible, and the vision brought before the Valar was nonsensical.

"Understandability" is a feature of reality only in so far as God/Eru wills it. There is no in-built rule in reality that demands it to be comprehensible. Einstein explained it quite well: the fact that the Universe is understandable, that it is liable to be studied by human reason, points strongly to the fact that there is a God. And even I, the staunchest evolutionist in this board :), can't see how natural selection would mould an organ (reason, not "brain") that is able to detect the order in the movement of stars and mathematics, without presupposing there is an order pre-existent. Why should there be one? If our reason is merely the product of natural selection, then so is our science and all of our knowledge, and therefore we can't trust any of it to be true.

(Including, of course, the conclusion that reason is merely the product of natural selection :D ).

Finally, what about Manwë? Do you claim he does not exist in Tolkien's myth? He does not understand evil, he has no knowledge of evil. In our world, Manwë's role is assumed by the angels. (The real existence of angels is a side track. Luckily we are examining Tolkien's world here). If we must assume that Evil must exist or we would not understand or know it, I think this means that to Manwë it doesn't exist, since he fits these requirements.

And if something exists for some and not for others, I guess it is safe to say it does not "truly exists" -- just like blindness; or sight, for that matter!

(The matter of the true, ontological existence of things is a big investigation).

[Helcaraxë]

I'm not saying that to exist something must be understood. What I am saying is that we know evil exists not only because we understand it but also because we experience it. If evil does not exist, then how do you explain Morgoth? I find the idea of evil's non-existence rather far-fetched. I never said that if Manwe didn't understand evil it wouldn't exist.

[Eriol]

(I told Celebthôl that the non-existence of evil is a hard idea to explain...)

Evil has psychological existence. People can act evilly; Acts can have evil consequences -- even if people are not acting evilly.

However, evil has no ontological existence, which is the most basic kind of existence, and is why I can claim that it doesn't exist. You can't point at anything that exists and say -- "That is intrinsically evil". Not even Melkor; not even Satan.

Another way to put it is to say that existence, itself, is associated with goodness. And it is clear enough why this is so in a monotheistic setting. Everything that exists does so only through God's will (or Eru's will). Since God/Eru is perfect (i.e., All-Good), everything that exists is good in itself.

Evil appears when someone disobeys God's wishes. The ability to disobey God's wishes -- free will -- is among the greatest goods. This is why evil is allowed to exist; in a sense, evil is a side effect of free will. You can only erradicate evil by eliminating free will, but this would be a much greater evil in itself.

[Helcaraxë]

That makes more sense. However, even if it only exists psychologically, that is still existence, though on a different level than if it were innately present in the world. Because of this, I don't think the statement that evil is non-existant is completely accurate, though is certainly has some truth to it.

-MoGoBa

[Lantarion]

Ooh, I think we have an idealist among us! ;)

[Helcaraxë]

Would that be me or eriol? If its me, why am I an idealist. Granted, I probably am one at that.:) :) :D ;)